Mr. Speaker, my colleague is probably referring to the decision by the Provincial Court of British Columbia. I said earlier that the Attorney General of Canada has appealed this decision.

Even though it is a decision by a lower court, the department has decided to carry on negotiating with a view to reaching agreements regarding pilot sales for the current year in British Columbia. That is my answer.

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague, the hon. parliamentary secretary, I will be pleased to respond to the remarks of the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.

I welcome this opportunity to respond to the concerns of my hon. colleague concerning the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations. These regulations are an important part of the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy and of Fisheries and Oceans Canada's initiative in response to the Marshall decisions.

The fishing licences issued under the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations give the aboriginal people access to fisheries for food, social and ceremonial purposes as well as access to commercial fisheries.

While believing that the regulations are valid, the Government of Canada clearly expressed the desire to respond to the concerns of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

I can only commend once again the committee members on their dedication to this issue as well as their continued efforts to make their concerns heard. The Government of Canada reviewed at length the views expressed by the committee. Instead of bypassing the parliamentary process—far from it—as the hon. member suggested, in June, the minister introduced in this very place Bill C-43 to amend the Fisheries Act.

Bill C-43 clarifies which legislative authority will be responsible for the regulations governing fisheries in Canada. The honourable member referred to pilot sales and to the judgment handed down this summer by the Provincial Court of British Columbia in the Queen v. Kapp.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed that decision. And even though it was the decision of a lower court, the department decided to continue negotiating in order to conclude pilot sales agreements for the current year in British Columbia. It also terminated existing agreements, in accordance with provisions in those agreements.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is working with British Columbia's first nations to arrive at agreements that will be in the interest of those aboriginal communities who want to reap the economic advantages of fishing, and that will bring more certainty and stability to all aboriginal and non aboriginal participants.

Furthermore, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will continue to cooperate with all stakeholders in this fishing industry. Preservation of the resource and proper management of fisheries remain a priority of the department.

As the minister said to the member in June, the majority of Canadians and all the members on this side of the House want aboriginal peoples, the first inhabitants of this country, to have fair economic opportunities, and that is what we are going to provide.

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to ask my colleague if he believes that the process we have undertaken to reform the Copyright Act gives us the latitude to review the provisions in question. Given that this process is just starting, does he not feel that he will have an opportunity to rectify this situation should there be a different outcome?

Mr. Speaker, my eminent colleague, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Heritage Canada, has informed us that he was there in 1997 and therefore he participated in consideration and passage of the new Copyright Act. He will certainly be able to tell the House today what position he takes on the transition period.

What happened with the Copyright Act is that, previously, unpublished works were protected for an indefinite period. That was very frustrating for historians and researchers, who always had to ask for permission before using anything at all. That is the reason copyright on unpublished works was limited to 50 years.

We found ourselves with the situation that unpublished works by authors who died after 1948 were protected until December 31, 2048. In contrast, if the author died before 1948, protection for his or her unpublished works would expire on December 31, 2003.

The hon. member agrees, does he not, that action was needed to make this transition period more even-handed with regard to authors who died before 1948 and those who died after 1948? There was an urgent need for action. That is why we have included sections 20 and 21 in the act merging the National Archives and National Library.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is referring to another situation. I cannot comment on things I am not aware of. Thus, I will refrain from answering, because I do not know what happened during consideration of Bill C-13.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. He will no doubt understand that parliamentary committees are master of their own proceedings. They can make any decision they want.

The day in question, the committee sat and decided—contrary to my wishes, I humbly admit—to reinstate the clauses concerning the Copyright Act for the simple reason that, when we passed the Copyright Act in 1997, the transitional period provided for was too short.

At the time, it was decided that the people in the industry, all those concerned, would get together to try and find a solution to this problem of the transitional period being too short. That is why the clauses were reinstated.

I want to tell my hon. colleague, who is speaking on behalf of another member, that if he understands the role of the standing committees of this house, he will no doubt understand how colleagues came in that day with the firm intention of having the clauses in question approved. Being the master of its proceedings, the committee voted. Following the vote, the clauses were approved. I only abided by the wishes of the committee. That is how this situation came to be.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has some nerve asking me that question, given that she was at committee that morning but she suddenly stormed out. Had she stayed, she would understand how things went during that meeting. I encourage her to read the transcript of that particular meeting.

Also, as a committed parliamentarian, she will no doubt understand that a parliamentary committee is free to make any decision it wants in a meeting.

Finally, I find it unfortunate that she stormed out that day because otherwise she would understand what happened.

As a parliamentarian in this House and member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, he will certainly not be surprised that, when a standing committee of this House is sitting, it is sovereign in its decisions. Although as parliamentary secretary I can work out an agreement, the fact remains that when the committee reconvenes, it can very well change it and do what it wants.

When the decision was made that day, the committee, as a sovereign entity, decided to reinstate the provisions. Unfortunately, my colleague was not there. I explained to the committee members that my wish was to certainly not include them. Nonetheless, the committee being sovereign and not bound to the Department of Canadian Heritage, it can make any decision it wants when it is sitting.

My colleague will certainly understand that that is what happened that day. The members present decided to bring back the provisions. That is why, at report stage, we had to consider the bill as it had been adopted in committee.